Kidnapping: a Modern Definition John L

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Kidnapping: a Modern Definition John L University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 1985 Kidnapping: A Modern Definition John L. Diamond UC Hastings College of the Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation John L. Diamond, Kidnapping: A Modern Definition, 13 Am. J. Crim. L. 1 (1985). Available at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/95 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Faculty Publications UC Hastings College of the Law Library Diamond John Author: John L. Diamond Source: American Journal of Criminal Law Citation: 13 Am. J. Crim. L. 1 (1985). Title: Kidnapping: A Modern Definition Originally published in AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW. This article is reprinted with permission from AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW and University of Texas School of Law. Articles Kidnapping: A Modern Definition John L. Diamond* I. INTRODUCTION Although kidnapping is an infamous crime, perceived by the pub- lic with both dread and morbid curiosity,1 and the subject of fine liter- ature,' it is also a crime that has eluded meaningful definition.' The common law offense is now codified in state penal laws, but the lan- guage in these statutes is frequently ambiguous and potentially overbroad.4 * Associate Professor of Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. B.A., Yale College; Dipl. Crim., Emmanuel College, Cambridge University; J.D., Columbia Law School. The author would like to express his appreciation for the excellent research assistance of William Green, Michael V. Hoffman, Mark A. Landis, Daven G. Lowhurst, and Joseph R. Ramrath. The author also expresses his gratitude to Professors David I. Levine, Scott E. Sundby and Louis B. Schwartz of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, for their helpful comments on an earlier draft. 1. According to a study by Ernest Alix, the New York Times reported 1,703 cases of kid- napping occurring entirely or in part in the United States between 1874 and 1974, including 236 "classic kidnapping[s] for ransom." E.K. ALIX, RANSOM KIDNAPPING IN AMERICA, 1874-1974 166-67 (1978). It has been suggested that the development of the automobile and organized crime during the prohibition years led to an increase in ransom kidnapping in the late 1920's and 1930's. Id. at 43-49, 67-77; see also, Kanter, Kidnapping,in 3 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CRIME AND JUSTICE 993-94 (1983); Note, A Rationale of the Law of Kidnapping, 53 COLUM. L. REV. 540 (1953). One of the most infamous kidnappings of this century took place on March 1,1932, when the infant son of Charles Lindberg was abducted from his home and eventually killed. State v. Hauptmann, 115 N.J.L. 412, 180 A. 809 (1935). However, the alleged kidnapper, Bruno Rich- ard Hauptman, was not prosecuted for kidnapping. At that time, in New Jersey, kidnapping was only a high misdemeanor and therefore the statutory felony murder rule could only be invoked if the prosecutor could find some other crime that would supply the necessary felony. Since the stealing of a child could not sustain a burglary conviction at common law, the prosecutor chose to allege that Hauptmann had intended to steal the child's sleeping suit. The prosecutor was successful and Hauptmann was executed. Id.; see also Kanter, supra, at 993, 994-95. 2. See, eg., R.L. STEVENSON, KIDNAPPED (1886). 3. See MODEL PENAL CODE § 212.1 comment at 220-22 (1980). 4. For example, the New York Court of Appeals could at one point do no better than to merely "explain" that the New York statute was intended to cover "kidnapping in the conven- tional sense in which that term has now come to have acquired meaning." People v. Levy, 15 HeinOnline -- 13 Am. J. Crim. L. 1 1985-1986 AM. J. CRIM. LAW Vol. 13:1 (1985) The original concept of kidnapping was clear. As Perkins defines it, "[a]t common law kidnapping was ... the forcible abduction or stealing away of a man, woman or child from his own country and sending him into another."5 Kidnapping was originally a misde- meanor punishable with a fine, short imprisonment and pillory.6 It developed out of the related misdemeanor of false imprisonment7 and has been described as the "most aggravated form of false imprisonment."' The term kidnapping emerged in English case law towards the N.Y.2d 159, 164-65, 204 N.E.2d 842, 844, 256 N.Y.S.2d 793, 796 (1965). See also, Annot., 43 A.L.R. 3d 699 (1972 & Supp. 1984). The federal law on kidnapping requires generally that the victim be "willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce." 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(1976 & Supp. 1985). The statute also covers persons kidnapped within special maritime, territorial, and aircraft jurisdictions of the United States, as well as certain foreign and government officials. These sections do not require interstate or foreign transportation of the victim. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), 351(b), 1751(b)(1976 & Supp. 1985). The statute also provides a rebuttable presumption that a victim detained for 24 hours has been transported in interstate or foreign commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 1201(b)(1976 & Supp. 1985). But see U.S. v. Moore, 571 F.2d 76 (2d Cir. 1978), holding the rebuttable presumption unconstitutional. The general requirement of interstate or foreign transportation substantially limits the occa- sions when federal kidnapping charges can be applied for abductions involving short amounts of asportation. See also related federal provisions on hostage taking for the purpose of compelling a third person or a governmental organization from doing or abstaining from doing any act (18 U.S.C. § 1203 (1976 & Supp. 1985)), enticement into slavery (18 U.S.C. § 1583 (1976 & Supp. 1985)), and abductions associated with attempting to avoid apprehension for bank robbery and related crimes (18 U.S.C. § 2113 (1976 & Supp. 1985)). 5. R. PERKINS & R. BOYCE, CRIMINAL LAW 229 (3d ed. 1982). The term "kidnapping" according to the Oxford English Dictionary was originally used to refer to stealing or "carrying off (children or others) in order to provide servants or labourers for the American plantations." 5 OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 691 (1933). The word is a compound of "nap" (related entymologically to the word of "nab"), meaning snatch, and "kid," which probably originally meant any indentured servant brought to the American colonies, including but not limited to children. Napier, Detention Offenses at Common Law, in RESHAPING THE CRIMINAL LAW 190, 194-96 (1978); See MODEL PENAL CODE § 212.1 comment at 210-20; See also Note, From Blackstone to Inni: A JudicialSearch for a Definition of Kidnapping, 16 SUFFOLK U.L. REv. 367, 368-74 (1982). 6. EAsr, I E.H. PLEAS OF THE CROWN 429-30 (1803). 7. Perkins defines false imprisonment as "the unlawful confinement of a person." PER- KINS & BOYCE, supra note 5, at 224. The common law crime of false imprisonment can be traced back to the Magna Carta. Lambert, Kidnappingand Imprisonment at Common Law, 10 CAM- BRIA L. REv. 20, 21 (1978-79). S. EAST, supra note 6, at 429, 430. See PERKINS & BOYCE, supra note 5, at 229 n.2 (and accompanying text, concurring with East). Perkins also argues that an infant can be a victim of false imprisonment. Id., at 224. But see Williams, The Kidnapping of Children, NEW L.J. 278 (1984), suggesting that: whereas false imprisonment involves an issue of the victim's consent (so that it is virtu- ally impossible to imprison a baby falsely), a charge of kidnapping a young child in- volves an inquiry into the consent of the parent or guardians. If this is so, East's description of kidnapping as an aggravated false imprisonment is true only for persons beyond the age of (presumably) 14. HeinOnline -- 13 Am. J. Crim. L. 2 1985-1986 Kidnapping end of the 17th century. It was used to describe the forced recruit- ment of labor for the American colonies.9 Contemporary statutes have changed the original common law crime in key ways. Kidnap- ping is now a felony punishable in some states by life imprisonment. In addition, the requirement that the victim must be transported out of the country has been abandoned. Although state laws still define kidnapping in terms of movement of the victim, there is much uncertainty regarding the amount of movement necessary to elevate what might simply be an assault with brief confinement to the serious crime of kidnapping. This confusion exists even in states where numerous appellate decisions have pur- ported to clarify the crime. 10 9. Napier reports "the earliest occurrence of the word" in the English law reports ap- peared in Boly, (1686) comb. 10, although Dessigny, (1682) T. Raym 474, decided four years earlier, used the term "spirited away" and probably is "also an instance of the offense." Napier, supra note 5, at 194-95. While the facts in Baily were not reported, in Dessigny a student at Merchant Taylor's School was transported to Jamaica and the defendant was fined 500 pounds. Id. The practice of forced recruitment of labor for the American colonies ended as colonial independence approached and by the 1770's, according to Napier, the crime of kidnapping "enter[ed] a long period of legal oblivion in England." Id.
Recommended publications
  • Crime, Law Enforcement, and Punishment
    Shirley Papers 48 Research Materials, Crime Series Inventory Box Folder Folder Title Research Materials Crime, Law Enforcement, and Punishment Capital Punishment 152 1 Newspaper clippings, 1951-1988 2 Newspaper clippings, 1891-1938 3 Newspaper clippings, 1990-1993 4 Newspaper clippings, 1994 5 Newspaper clippings, 1995 6 Newspaper clippings, 1996 7 Newspaper clippings, 1997 153 1 Newspaper clippings, 1998 2 Newspaper clippings, 1999 3 Newspaper clippings, 2000 4 Newspaper clippings, 2001-2002 Crime Cases Arizona 154 1 Cochise County 2 Coconino County 3 Gila County 4 Graham County 5-7 Maricopa County 8 Mohave County 9 Navajo County 10 Pima County 11 Pinal County 12 Santa Cruz County 13 Yavapai County 14 Yuma County Arkansas 155 1 Arkansas County 2 Ashley County 3 Baxter County 4 Benton County 5 Boone County 6 Calhoun County 7 Carroll County 8 Clark County 9 Clay County 10 Cleveland County 11 Columbia County 12 Conway County 13 Craighead County 14 Crawford County 15 Crittendon County 16 Cross County 17 Dallas County 18 Faulkner County 19 Franklin County Shirley Papers 49 Research Materials, Crime Series Inventory Box Folder Folder Title 20 Fulton County 21 Garland County 22 Grant County 23 Greene County 24 Hot Springs County 25 Howard County 26 Independence County 27 Izard County 28 Jackson County 29 Jefferson County 30 Johnson County 31 Lafayette County 32 Lincoln County 33 Little River County 34 Logan County 35 Lonoke County 36 Madison County 37 Marion County 156 1 Miller County 2 Mississippi County 3 Monroe County 4 Montgomery County
    [Show full text]
  • Kidnap and Ransom/Extortion Coverage Part
    KIDNAP AND RANSOM/EXTORTION COVERAGE PART I. INSURING AGREEMENTS This Non-Liability Coverage Part applies to the Ransom Monies, Expenses, and Personal Incidental Loss stated below that are paid by an Insured Entity at any time, provided, however, that: (i) such payments result from a covered Kidnapping, Extortion Threat, Detention, or Hijacking that occurs during the Policy Period and (ii) the Insured Entity discovers such occurrence, and makes a claim for reimbursement under this Non-Liability Coverage Part , no later than twelve (12) months after the expiration of the Policy Period . (A) Kidnap/Ransom/Extortion The Insurer shall reimburse Ransom Monies paid by an Insured Entity resulting from a covered Kidnapping or Extortion Threat . (B) Expense The Insurer shall reimburse Expenses paid by an Insured Entity resulting from a covered Kidnapping, Extortion Threat , Detention or Hijacking of any Insured Person . (C) Custody/Delivery If, as a result of a covered Kidnapping or Extortion Threat , an Insured Entity sustains a destruction, disappearance, confiscation or wrongful appropriation of Ransom Monies, while they are being delivered to persons demanding such Ransom Monies by someone who is authorized by the Insured Entity to deliver them, the Insurer will reimburse the Insured Entity for such Ransom Monies . (D) Personal Incidental Loss The Insurer shall reimburse an Insured Entity for payments made to an Insured Person, or such person’s estate in the event of Loss of Life , for the Personal Incidental Loss sustained by such Insured Person from a covered Kidnapping , Detention or Hijacking. II. DEFINITIONS The following terms, whether used in the singular or plural in this Non-Liability Coverage Part , shall have the meaning specified below: • “Bodily Injury Extortion” means any threat, communicated to an Insured Entity or an Insured Person for the purpose of demanding Ransom Monies, to kill, physically injure or kidnap an Insured Person .
    [Show full text]
  • Penal Code Offenses by Punishment Range Office of the Attorney General 2
    PENAL CODE BYOFFENSES PUNISHMENT RANGE Including Updates From the 85th Legislative Session REV 3/18 Table of Contents PUNISHMENT BY OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................... 2 PENALTIES FOR REPEAT AND HABITUAL OFFENDERS .......................................................... 4 EXCEPTIONAL SENTENCES ................................................................................................... 7 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 4 ................................................................................................. 8 INCHOATE OFFENSES ........................................................................................................... 8 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 5 ............................................................................................... 11 OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON ....................................................................................... 11 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 6 ............................................................................................... 18 OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY ......................................................................................... 18 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 7 ............................................................................................... 20 OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY .......................................................................................... 20 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 8 ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Assault Includes Both a Specific Intent to Commit a Battery, and a Battery That Is Otherwise Unprivileged Committed with Only General Intent
    QUESTION 5 Don has owned Don's Market in the central city for twelve years. He has been robbed and burglarized ten times in the past ten months. The police have never arrested anyone. At a neighborhood crime prevention meeting, apolice officer told Don of the state's new "shoot the burglar" law. That law reads: Any citizen may defend his or her place of residence against intrusion by a burglar, or other felon, by the use of deadly force. Don moved a cot and a hot plate into the back of the Market and began sleeping there, with a shotgun at the ready. After several weeks of waiting, one night Don heard noises. When he went to the door, he saw several young men running away. It then dawned on him that, even with the shotgun, he might be in a precarious position. He would likely only get one shot and any burglars would get the next ones. With this in mind, he loaded the shotgun and fastened it to the counter, facing the front door. He attached a string to the trigger so that the gun would fire when the door was opened. Next, thinking that when burglars enter it would be better if they damaged as little as possible, he unlocked the front door. He then went out the back window and down the block to sleep at his girlfriend's, where he had been staying for most of the past year. That same night a police officer, making his rounds, tried the door of the Market, found it open, poked his head in, and was severely wounded by the blast.
    [Show full text]
  • ~. Provocation As a Defence to Murder
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. LAW REFORM COMMISSIONER VICTORIA , r Working Paper No.6 : -­ I ~. PROVOCATION AS A DEFENCE "~I TO MURDER MELBOURNE 1979 '. NCJf:'~~S SEP 261979 ACQUISITIONS, LAW REFORM COMMISSIONER I VICTORIA . " ! . , ". ~. I :'! .~, . ' .. " \ .. ' , Working Paper No.6 _} " ",!, I .. 1:. : . : ~ , PROVOCATION AS A DEFENCE TO MUR'D'ER MELBOURNE 1979 / Views expressed in this Working Paper are provisional only and such suggestions as are made are tentative. Comment and criticism are invited and it would be greatly appreciated if these could be forwarded before 1st October, 1979. Law Reform Commissioner 155 Queen Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000. I CONTENTS Paragraph Page Introduction 1 5 What is Provocation? 4 S 19th Century Views 5 6 The Emergence of "The Reasonable Man" and "The Ordinary Man" 9 7 "The Ordinary Man" in Legislation 13 9 "The Reasonable Man" and the Common Law 18 11 The Case of Holmes 20 11 More of "The Reasonable Person" 28 13 Legislative Change 32 15 The New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 37 16 The New Zealand Case 38 16 Victoria Today 41 18 Ever the Problem of "The Ordinary Man" 59 23 A Climate of Reform 64 24 (a) Eire 64 24 (b) England 65 24 (c) U.S.A.- The Model Penal Code . 68 25 (d) South Australia 72 26 Reform for Victoria 76 27 References 31 3 WORKING PAPER No.6 PROVOCATION AS A DEFENCE TO MURDER. Introduction 1. By letter dated the 13th day of March, 1979 The Honourable the Attorney-General acting pursuant to section 8 (b) of the Law Reform Act 1973 referred to the Law Reform Commissioner the following reference:- "To investigate and report upon the necessity for reform of the law relating to provocation as a defence to a charge of murder." 2.
    [Show full text]
  • CODE OFFENSE Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Totals 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 0 0 0 0
    CODE OFFENSE Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Totals 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AA35E ASLT 4-GM-INFLICT-ATTEMPT BODILY HARM-SCHOOL OFFICIAL 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 AA357 ASLT 4-GM-INFLICT BODILY HARM-POLICE 0 0 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 0 AD302 ASLT 5-GM-INFLICT BODILY HARM-NO WEAPON-ADULT KNOWN 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AD351 ASLT 5 PRIOR CONVICTION 2Y-GM-ADULT FAMILY 0 0 4 2 3 5 3 4 6 3 AD354 ASLT 5 PRIOR CONVICTION 2Y-GM-CHILD FAMILY 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AD401 ASLT 5 PRIOR CONVICTION 5Y-GM-ADULT FAMILY 0 1 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 AG301 ASLT 5 FE-INFLICT ATTEMPT BODILY HARM-ADULT FAMILY 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 AG302 ASLT 5-FE-INFLICT BODILY HARM-NO WEAPON-ADULT KNOWN 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AG351 ASLT 5 FE-INFLICT ATTEMPT BODILY HARM-HANDS-ADULT FAMILY 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 AG401 ASLT 5 FE-FEAR BODILY HARM-NO WEAPON-ADULT FAMILY 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 AJ251 DOM ASLT-FE-INFLT SUBST B 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AJ351 DOM ASLT-FE-INFLT ATTEMPT BODILY HARM-HANDS-ADULT FAMILY 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 1 0 1 AJ352 DOM ASLT-FE-INFLICT ATTEMPT BODILY HARM-HANDS-ADULT KNOWN 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 AJ401 DOM ASLT-FE-FEAR BODILY HARM-NO WEAPON-ADULT FAMILY 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 AJ551 DOM ASLT-FE-INFLICT BODILY HARM-HANDS-ADULT FAMILY 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AK302 DOM ASLT-GM-INFLICTS ATTEMPT BODILY HARM-UNKNOWN-ADULT FAMILY 0 1 AK351 DOM ASLT-GM-INFLICTS ATTEMPT BODILY HARM-HANDS-ADULT FAMILY 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 AK352 DOM ASLT-GM-INFLICTS ATTEMPT BODILY HARM-HANDS-ADULT KNOWN 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AL301 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-NO WEAPON-ADULT FAMILY 0 0 5 2 4 2
    [Show full text]
  • CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY: the STATE of MIND CRIME-INTENT, PROVING INTENT, and ANTI-FEDERAL Intentt
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 1976 Criminal Conspiracy: The tS ate of Mind Crime - Intent, Proving Intent, Anti-Federal Intent Paul Marcus William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Marcus, Paul, "Criminal Conspiracy: The tS ate of Mind Crime - Intent, Proving Intent, Anti-Federal Intent" (1976). Faculty Publications. 557. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/557 Copyright c 1976 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY: THE STATE OF MIND CRIME-INTENT, PROVING INTENT, AND ANTI-FEDERAL INTENTt Paul Marcus* I. INTRODUCTION The crime of conspiracy, unlike other substantive or inchoate crimes, deals almost exclusively with the state of mind of the defendant. Although a person may simply contemplate committing a crime without violating the law, the contemplation becomes unlawful if the same criminal thought is incorporated in an agreement. The state of mind element of conspiracy, however, is not concerned entirely with this agreement. As Dean Harno properly remarked 35 years ago, "The conspiracy consists not merely in the agreement of two or more but in their intention."1 That is, in their agreement the parties not only must understand that they are uniting to commit a crime, but they also must desire to complete that crime as the result of their combination. Criminal conspiracy, therefore, involves two distinct states of mind. The first state of mind prompts the conspirators to reach an agreement; the second relates to the crime that is the object of the agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering 18 U.S.C. § 1959 a Manual for Federal Prosecutors
    Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering 18 U.S.C. § 1959 A Manual for Federal Prosecutors December 2006 Prepared by the Staff of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20005 (202) 514-3594 Frank J. Marine, Consultant Douglas E. Crow, Principal Deputy Chief Amy Chang Lee, Assistant Chief Robert C. Dalton Merv Hamburg Gregory C.J. Lisa Melissa Marquez-Oliver David J. Stander Catherine M. Weinstock Cover Design by Linda M. Baer PREFACE This manual is intended to assist federal prosecutors in the preparation and litigation of cases involving the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1959. Prosecutors are encouraged to contact the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section (OCRS) early in the preparation of their case for advice and assistance. All pleadings alleging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959 including any indictment, information, or criminal complaint, and a prosecution memorandum must be submitted to OCRS for review and approval before being filed with the court. The submission should be approved by the prosecutor’s office before being submitted to OCRS. Due to the volume of submissions received by OCRS, prosecutors should submit the proposal three weeks prior to the date final approval is needed. Prosecutors should contact OCRS regarding the status of the proposed submission before finally scheduling arrests or other time-sensitive actions relating to the submission. Moreover, prosecutors should refrain from finalizing any guilty plea agreement containing a Section 1959 charge until final approval has been obtained from OCRS. The policies and procedures set forth in this manual and elsewhere relating to 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • ETHICAL ISSUES for WHITE COLLAR DEFENSE and INVESTIGATIONS LAWYERS Part 3 of 3: Representing Clients Who May Be Engaged in Unlaw
    ETHICAL ISSUES FOR WHITE COLLAR DEFENSE AND INVESTIGATIONS LAWYERS Part 3 of 3: Representing Clients Who May be Engaged in Unlawful Conduct During the Course of the Representation Vince Farhat Calon Russell Marissa Buck Nellie Q. Barnard Published by the Holland & Knight Legal Profession Team1 1 Holland and Knight’s Legal Profession Team represents lawyers and law firms in the broad array of issues unique to the legal profession. The Legal Profession Team provides advice on, inter alia, compliance with ethical rules, disciplinary defense, retail legal malpractice, partnership formation, partnership dissolution, partnership disputes, lateral lawyer moves (i.e., switching firms), attorney fee disputes, disqualification motions, and complex attorney-client privilege or work product questions. The authors would like to extend a special thank you to Peter Jarvis and Allison Rhodes (co-chairs of Holland & Knight’s Legal Profession Team), for their contributions to the first installment of this paper. Series Overview Recent corporate scandals have made effective and honest corporate governance the chief priority for every company. Proactive and incisive white collar defense counsel in this area is a must. Reacting swiftly to serious problems can be an important factor affecting the final outcome. But white collar defense and investigation lawyers must be mindful of unique ethical issues that can arise in representing clients in criminal and civil government investigations. This series of articles discusses three general sources of ethical issues for white collar defense lawyers that we see most frequently: (1) entering into Joint Defense Agreements with other defendants or other subjects in government investigations; (2) privilege and confidentiality considerations when conducting corporate internal investigations; and (3) representing clients who may be engaged in unlawful conduct during the course of representation.
    [Show full text]
  • Dangerous Driving Causing Death Penalty Victoria
    Dangerous Driving Causing Death Penalty Victoria Outright Job still deep-fried: smashing and wisest Willy aggrandise quite satanically but diverts her lymphocytes jealously. Pinched Quent thinks some automations and rives his chinches so powerfully! Catechumenical or ultimate, Lucian never curdled any unclearness! With four counts of culpable driving causing death Victoria Police manual on Monday morning. Penalties on causing death by dangerous driving Sentencing. What are dangerous driving Offences? A driver who came an 11-year-old girl count her input in Saanich while speeding. The race wholesale sentencing changes in Victoria provide two good. A plant what occurred and act may have caused the teenager to frontier the homeless. To take the same penalties as causing death by dangerous driving. More on VIC Thornton Law wildlife and Justice Prisons and Punishment Fire Service Courts and Trials. Of vehicles CarelessDangerous driving Leaving the scene of each accident. Vic businessman jailed for deadly driving. Death by driving sentencing leaflet Sentencing Council. The verge of manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment for 25 years. The hypocrite of causing death by dangerous driving is contained in s 167A of the. 52 The legislation requires that event Court contain the Victoria Sentencing. For Culpable Driving Causing Death according to the Crimes Act 195 Vic s 311. Our brains are mysteriously amazing All day they're drag in information assessing risks and helping us with mundane tasks like survey and driving Simultaneously our brains regulate the function of our organs nervous system or keep us breathing. The errand was created to piss a perceived gap between Culpable driving causing death which carried a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment and licence.
    [Show full text]
  • Kidnapping, Hostage Taking, Extortion, Attacks
    Prevention and Coping Strategies Kidnapping, Hostage Taking, Extortion, Attacks About EuNAT The European Network of Advisory Teams (EuNAT) is a network of experienced law enforcement advisory teams from across Europe, who provide a mechanism for immediate international cooperation when responding to the threat of kidnapping, hostage taking and extortion, where life is at risk. The network represents a platform for sharing good practice in this specific field throughout the EU and within the members’ respective countries, within the constraints of each Member State’s legal framework. EuNAT: Sharing knowledge saves lives. 1 Foreword Due to your personal and/or professional circumstances, you and your family may be at a higher risk of being affected by a serious offence like kidnapping, hostage taking or extortion. Experience shows that these crimes are often well prepared by the perpetrators. The offender might take advantage of the victim’s routines or habits in order to identify opportunities for an attack. Understanding this will help you identify any weak spots in your routines and take steps to reduce the risk of becoming a victim. This also applies to spontaneous crimes such as robberies. This brochure aims to help you minimise potential and foreseeable risks and suggests how you can do this, in order to be as safe as possible. It should be used in accordance with national and company laws, policies and procedures. The content may reinforce what you already know or raise new ideas that you have not yet considered. It also contains recommendations for reacting to critical situations like a kidnapping. 2 Contents Foreword ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota's Definitions of “Substantial Bodily Harm”
    Mitchell Hamline School of Law Mitchell Hamline Open Access Symposium: 50th Anniversary of the Minnesota Mitchell Hamline Events Criminal Code-Looking Back and Looking Forward 2013 Escape from the Twilight Zone: Minnesota’s Definitions of “Substantial Bodily Harm” and “Great Bodily Harm” Leave Too Much Room for Injustice, and They Can Be Improved Joshua Larson Adult Prosecution Division, Hennepin County Attorney’s Office Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/symposium-minnesota- criminal-code Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Larson, Joshua, "Escape from the Twilight Zone: Minnesota’s Definitions of “Substantial Bodily Harm” and “Great Bodily Harm” Leave Too Much Room for Injustice, and They aC n Be Improved" (2013). Symposium: 50th Anniversary of the Minnesota Criminal Code-Looking Back and Looking Forward. Paper 5. http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/symposium-minnesota-criminal-code/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Mitchell Hamline Events at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Symposium: 50th Anniversary of the Minnesota Criminal Code-Looking Back and Looking Forward by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DRAFT Escape from the Twilight Zone: Minnesota’s Definitions of “Substantial Bodily Harm” and “Great Bodily Harm” Leave Too Much Room for Injustice, and They Can Be Improved. Joshua Larson1 What a frightening thing is the human, a mass of gauges and dials and registers, and we can only read a few and those perhaps not accurately.2 Part 1: Introduction Charging someone with a felony-level assault is not akin to sticking a toe in the water; it is a dive from a significant height.
    [Show full text]